PERM - Labor Certification Sample Cases from our office

These are some sample cases from our files. It is impossible for us to present all have done past over 15 years of our practice. But these were some cases that came to mind when we started writing this column 2-3 years ago.

The sponsoring employer was a small company (less than 20 employees) that was sponsoring the brother of the president.  The Labor Certification was audited due to the familial relationship, which is a significant issue in the PERM process. We successfully responded by proving that the relationship between the president and the applicant did not influence or affect the PERM Processing.  The I-140 petition and I-485 petitions were approved, and the applicant received his permanent residency. 

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------

In a case decided yesterday, we had filed an appeal to BALCA against a PERM denial by the Certifying Officer (“CO”).  The ground for denial was that the Job Order did not provide the exact salary offered to the foreign worker.  We showed in our appeal that the fault lay with the Job Order form of the State Workforce Agency.  The form did not permit us to enter the higher end of the wage range for our job, where we had offered a wage range instead of an exact figure.  The CO appears to have agreed with us and has withdrawn denial and certified our case. 

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------

We had a Labor certification case filed for an IT professional. The requirements were Bachelor's degree and 5 years of experience. We filed I-140 under EB-2 category.  After approximately 8 months, USCIS sent us an RFE saying Bachelor's plus five years would not qualify under EB2 unless the experience required is progressive in nature.  We knew that USCIS was wrong under the circumstances of the case, but an argument with the government was unnecessary because the EB-3 priority dates were then current.  In the RFE, the employer was also given an option of changing the classification to EB3. After discussion it was decided that employer will accept EB-3 classification since the priority dates for EB-3 category were current.  Then the EB3 and EB2 priority dates slipped back.

Recently when the EB-2 PD became current for our client, we applied again for an EB-2 I-140 using the same labor certification.
The I-140 approval was received along with the I-485 approval notice.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------

We have recently been able to successfully reopen a labor certification and get the case approved after it had been closed because of what we feel were errors by two previous lawyers retained by employer. Our client had her case denied and closed over ONE YEAR ago. We were retained for a consultation and in-depth review. It appeared obvious that the employer and the employee were not at fault. It took some effort but the facts were compelling enough that USDOL reopened the case in the interest of justice. The case was approved last week. We truly appreciate the fairness shown by USDOL.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------

We filed an ETA 9089 (PERM) Petition by mail in July 2008, as the advertisements were expiring and DOL had a delay in registering the company's PERM account. A denial was issued on the grounds that the advertisements and prevailing wage were expired when the case was received for processing. Further inspection noted a typographical error by DOL in the year the case was received. Our office was able to correct this matter without going through the normal process of filing a Motion to Reconsider, therefore saving the client hundreds of dollars in legal fees and a year or more processing time for MTR's with the DOL. 

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------